The two military incidents over the weekend, both on the Syrian front and on the Gazan front—although unrelated—point to the fact that the relative calm along the borders in the past few years, which has become a symbol of security stability and Israel's deterrence abilities, is gradually wearing out.

So far, the logic behind IDF operations along the borders was that Israel must do everything in its power to avoid a military conflict. This led to the creation of an equation: On the one hand, Israel acted over the weekend to curb the transfer of long-range and accurate weapons from Syria to Hezbollah and to damage Hamas's infrastructure and capabilities in the Gaza Strip; on the other hand, Israel made sure not to push the enemy into a corner that would force it to respond in a way that could lead to an all-out conflict.

In recent weeks, however, Israel itself has been putting this equation to the test. It seems as if there is someone on our side who won’t be too sorry to see the security issue reclaim the headlines.

The weekend events in the north indicate that Israel is striking in Syria not only to curb the Iranian arms convoys to Hezbollah, but also to demonstrate its presence in Syria and make it clear, especially to the Russians, that there will be no agreement in Syria without Israel's input.

According to the Syrian army’s announcement, the Israel Air Force attacked the T4 airport, between Homs and Palmyra, a particularly sensitive area as far as the Russians are concerned, as the Syrian military recently completed a successful attack in the area with massive Russian aid. The airstrike and the interception of the Syrian anti-aircraft projectile raised the stakes for Israel on the Syrian poker table. We are one step closer to a military escalation on the Syrian front. Both sides have climbed up a high tree and are unwilling to budge.

Israel can’t climb down that tree because, according to its military policy, every show of weakness will harm its interests and give the Iranians a foothold in the Golan Heights and a pier at the port of Latakia. Such a pier will turn the supply of arms to Hezbollah from a drizzle into a deluge.

If the Syrians fail to climb down the tree and continue threatening Israel’s freedom of action against the weapon convoys to Hezbollah, a clash with the Syrian army—not just in the Golan Heights, but also deep within Syria—will be inevitable.

There is no wonder there is a nervous silence coming out of Moscow. Such incidents could have far-reaching ramifications on the agreement the Russians are trying to establish in Syria.

The Israeli ambassador in Moscow does not usually get summoned right before Shabbat unless there is unusual concern and anger on the Russian side. It’s quite possible that the Russians feel there is a gap between what they heard from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his meetings with President Vladimir Putin and Israeli actions on the ground. This isn’t another operational misunderstanding discussed as part of the coordination between the two armies, the Israeli and the Russian, or between the two defense ministries. This is a diplomatic crisis.

In general, Syria's decision to launch the improved S-200 model, which the Russians recently sold them, is surprising. The S-200 is a heavy, immobile anti-aircraft missile, which can reach a range of 300 kilometers, and is not meant for intercepting fighter jets. Furthermore, Russian military experts said recently that Israel was using electronic warfare systems that completely “blind” the Syrian batteries and disrupt their communication systems.

As far as we know, the Russians did not provide the Syrians with any information on the Israeli strike, which adds to the ambiguity of the decision to launch the Syrian interceptor. It’s also unclear who gave the order in Syria. It’s possible that the decision to launch the missile was not made in the presidential office, and that the Syrian military echelon claimed responsibility for the launch in hindsight.

The working assumption in Israel is that the Syrian missile was directed at some target—but not at the Air Force fighter aircraft, as they were no longer there. The Israeli Air Force is now investigating what was actually shot down by the Arrow missile. It might have been a large fragment of the S-200 that exploded in the air after missing its original target.

The IDF had no early warning about the Syrian missile launch. For years, the teams operating the Arrow 2 interceptor have been waiting for a real-time test—and they passed it successfully. This is also an impressive achievement for the Israeli defense industry. The Arrow 2 intercepted a ballistic object at a range of more than 100 kilometers, beyond Israel’s borders. This is a clear message to the Iranians for the day they decide to fire Shahab missile at Israel.

In Gaza, there has been a significant spike in the number of rockets launched at Israel by Salafist groups. Israel is using this as an excuse to increase its aerial activity against critical military infrastructures in the strip. But this back-and-forth game of ping-pong is taking place during a dramatic change of leadership in Gaza. Yahya Sanwar, who will become the Hamas leader in Gaza in April, is a former student of Abdullah Azzam, al-Qaeda’s spiritual teacher. Granted, he is giving up the prison and underground manners for political visits to civil institutions in the strip, dressed in a suit, but he is not committed to the alleged signs of moderation conveyed by the Hamas leadership in the Gulf states.

Israeli officials estimate that Hamas’ failure to respond to the airstrikes should not be taken as a sign of political moderation, but rather as a sign the organization has simply not yet completed its preparations for another round of fighting. This doesn’t guarantee that Israeli pressure, which will humiliate the leadership in Gaza or lead to casualties, won’t drag Hamas into an armed conflict with the weapons it has accumulated so far.

0
comments. Leave a comment below.:

Post a Comment

Spam and abuse will not be published. You can use some HTML tags in your comments.

SEARCH

SUBSCRIBE

FOLLOWERS

MISSION STATEMENT

It is our position that shariah law imposes second class status on women and is incompatible with the standards of liberal Western societies and the basic principles of human rights that include equality under the law and the protection of individual freedoms. The shariah code mandates the complete authority of men over women, including the control of their movement, education, marital options, clothing, bodies, place of residence and all other aspects of their existence. Further, it calls for the beating, punishment, and murder of women who don’t comply with shariah requirements.
In our efforts to stem the encroachment of shariah in the West, we are focusing on the following objectives:

Education of the American public about the inherent human rights violations and the attempt to undermine or replace U.S. law and American statutes with Islamic shariah

Alerting policy makers and legislators to potential human rights and equal rights violations and working toward the development of possible remedies and legal actions

Building coalitions with like-minded organizations to develop policy initiatives and interventions for victims of shariah.

IMPORTANT TERMS

Shariah: an all-encompassing and in-transmutable system of Islamic jurisprudence, found in the Koran and the Sunnah, that covers all aspect of life, including daily routines, hygiene, familial roles and responsibilities, social order and conduct, directives on relationships with Muslims and non-Muslims, religious obligations, financial dealings and many other facets of living.

Ird: the sexual purity of a woman that confers honor to her husband, family and community. Ird is based on the traditional standards of behavior set forth in the shariah code and includes subservience to male relatives, modest dress which could include veiling and the covering of the body, and restricted movement outside of the home. The loss of a woman’s ird confers shame upon her family and can result in ostracism by the community, economic damage, political consequences and the loss of self esteem.

Zina: the Koranic word for sexual relations outside of marriage. Under shariah law, Zina is punished by lashings, imprisonment or stoning to death.

FGM: female genital mutilation refers to the partial or complete removal of the female genitalia for religious and cultural reasons. It is practiced to preserve a female’s chastity and dampen her sexual desire. FGM is permitted in the Koran but required by the Shafi’i, one of the four schools of shariah law within Sunni Islam.

Honor Killing: a murder, usually of a female, committed to restore the social and political standing of a family or community when it is believed that the victim has violated traditional behavioral expectations. Such violations can include improper covering of the body, appearing in public without a male relative chaperone, talking to an unrelated male, or exhibiting independence in thought and action. An honor killing can also be based on hearsay or gossip that is perceived as damaging to a woman’s relatives.

Forced Marriage: a marriage that is conducted without the consent of one or both parties in which duress is a factor. Such duress can include violence or physical intimidation, psychological abuse, blackmailing, kidnapping, or threats of imprisonment or institutional confinement.

SLAVERY IN ISLAM

Islam permits the taking of slaves as “booty” or as a reward for waging jihad. Slavery became a Muslim tradition at the time that Mohammed moved to Medina and amassed sufficient power for the enslavement of non-Muslims.
Slavery is an accepted part of Islamic society and is never viewed in a negative way in the Koran, Sira or Hadith. In fact, it is a God-given right for Muslims to have slaves.
[6:7] Allah has given more of His gifts of material things to some rather than others. In the same manner, those who have more do not give an equal share to their slaves so that they would share equally. Would they then deny the favors of Allah.

Although Islam has sustained slavery for 1400 years, a Muslim may never be enslaved. Only non-believers or kafirs may be enslaved and may be eligible for freedom upon conversion to Islam at the discretion of the slave owner. Slavery is viewed as a moral good in Islam as it transforms a kafir into a believer.

Slaves have no means for legal action in Islam and their rights are based solely on the good will of their master. If a slave flees his master, this is view as a sin against Allah.

Slaves have few civil or legal rights.

The following are rules pertaining to slavery from the Shariah:

1) Muslim men may have sex with female slaves at any time and it is not possible to “rape” a slave.

2) Slaves have the same status as animals and it is permissible to whip them.

3) No Muslim can be put to death for murdering a slave.

4) A slave’s testimony is inadmissible in court.

5) Slaves can be forced to marry whomever their master chooses and may not choose their marriage mate.

6) Christians and Jews who do not pay the jizya or protection tax can be enslaved.

In his book, Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters, historian Robert Davis estimates that North African Muslims abducted and enslaved more than 1 million white Christian Europeans from the coastal towns from Sicily to Cornwall between 1530 and 1780. Muslim slavers also seized people from Britain, Ireland, Iceland and even American seaman on ships in the Atlantic.

In a recent case of Muslim slavery in the United States, Sarah Khonaizan and her husband Homaidan Al-Turki were arrested for forced labor, sexual abuse and harboring an alien for enslaving an Indonesian housekeeper in their home in Colorado.
The couple reportedly brought the housekeeper to Colorado from Saudi Arabia to care for their five children and to cook and clean for the family. The Indonesian woman slept on the basement floor, was paid less than $2 per day and was the victim of rape.
Al-Turki and his defense attorney complained that they were being persecuted for their beliefs and stated, "The state has criminalized these basic Muslim behaviors. Attacking traditional Muslim behaviors was the focal point of the prosecution."
Al-Turki received letters of support from the local Muslim community and from his academic colleagues at the University of Colorado.
This case continues to arouse strong feelings in Saudi Arabia where there is great sympathy and support for Al-Turki.
On March 26, 2008, a high level Saudi official brought up the case in a meeting with Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff. He urged Americans to review the case and mentioned the strong support for Al-Turki in Saudi Arabia.

RELIGION OF PEACE

IMPORTANT NOTE

Click on the title of each story in order to go to the original news story. Women Against Shariah does not claim copyright on any of the stories. This site should be considered a repository of news stories relating to Islamic matters. We aim to put all relevant news on this site so our viewers can locate these important stories in one place. Thank you.

ABOUT US

The mission of Women Against Shariah is to prevent and outlaw the imposition of shariah law in the United States for both Muslim and American women as either a parallel legal system or a replacement for existing laws. Additionally, we hope to empower women worldwide to resist shariah.